next. ♪ >> good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this is viewpoint. the white house challenge to arizona's horrific immigration law sb 1070 did not seem like a win center the supreme court today. justice sonya soto mayor even gave gave sow sow solicitor donald verilli that where his argument was concerned. you can see it's not selling

very well. arizona's law passed in 2010 established a policy of, quote attrition through enforcement to deter and drive ill legal immigrants from the state in what they described as an emergency situation. it requires illegals to carry identification and bans them from having a job. and it gives state and local law enforcement the power to detain anyone they suspect might be illegal immigrant. illinois democrat congress luis guttierrez spoke for many when he commented on that outside of the court. >> making judgments on whether you have dirt on your boots, the color of your skin, the accent of your voice or your last name. that is no way to make law enforcement in the united states of america. we need comprehensive immigration reform in this country and not laws that treats thousands and millions of latinos as suspects. >> but the power to enforce immigration laws, not whether that enforcement is a good or bad idea. that's why solicitor general

verilli agreed with chief justice roberts from the start that this case wasn't about ethnic or racial profiling instead, he argued that the law should be repealed because it conflicted with the federal government exclusive control of immigration policy. associatejustice scalia batted that away. quote, the state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there? what does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to secure your own borders. as for arizona goner i can't think brewer, she seemed confident that the state had won it's case. >> i thought that the hearing went very, very well. i feel very confident. as i walked out of there, that we will get a favorable ruling in late june.

>> with me to go over the case in its real world and political implications represent stiff chad campbell house minority leader and ms. wong director of the cecilia you were a clerk for the united states court, a remarkable honor for young lawyers. you were there today. explain to us why even if you oppose the law on the substance this might an difficult legal case? >> well, i think the first take away is that the court expressed great skepticism about two provisions when arizona tries to make it a crime under state law to work without authorization and makes it a crime not to carry registration documents. those pro provisions really receive some hard looks from the

justices. now, the headlines that you've mentioned really focus on tough questions that they got about section 2-b. this is the "show me your papers" provision under which arizona police officers are required to check someone's immigration status. now here is an important thing that we shouldn't miss about today's argument. arizona was in court today defending not the law that the arizona legislature passed, which was really out of disagreement with federal policy and requiring police officers to throw the book at immigrants, to detain them and haul them off to jail if there is any suspicion of undocumented status. the law arizona was defending in court was really a fictional provision under which were simply notifying the federal government there is someone that we think might be undocumented.

the justices on that view of section 2-b, the show me your papers provision were skeptical about the arguments about federal resources. >> can i interrupt one second. >> sure. >> most are not deeply schooled in the law as you, but the issue of the jurisdiction who has the power to do some of these--take some of these steps what arizona has argued, we have the power to ask people to prove their status, and that does not in any any way contra-vene the federal law. >> you're right. the case is about the limits of a state power to create it's own immigration policy and it's own immigration enforcement scheme. i think what eventually came through in the argument today although chief roberts came out of the box about the case of

racial profiling and the general solicitor said that's not our claim here. that really is relevant. as you said ordinary people-- >> sell seececelia. hold that thought. i want to give chad a chance to jump in here. he's the minority leader in arizona. i want to ask you even though i think--i don't think you're an attorney, but you voted against this law. do you understand obviously there is a difference between it's being a bad law and it's being unconstitutional, and how do you come down on the issue of constitutionality. >> i voted against the law. we've been very clear about that from the beginning. and i think that constitutionally there is confusion about this bill. there always has been. even though i'm not an attorney, based on what i've been learning today and what i have seen today, and what i heard about the account of the supreme court hearings, i believe that there

is a logical argument that is going to throw out parts of this bill if not all of this bill. that's part of the argument we made when we voted on this bill a couple of years ago. regardless of whether it survives a court challenge, if you're crafting a bill and parts are thrown out in the supreme court, how are you going to solve anything. that's the argument for many of us. this does not solve anything. it hurts arizona economically, and it does not get to the real issues that are surrounding a very complicated and very substantial issue, which is the immigration policy of this country. >> right, and which i think all of us feel and certainly the three of us, i don't want to speak for anybody, but it needs to be dealt with on a federal and national level for any coherent meaning that is attached to our immigration laws. cecelia let me ask you what would this mean in a real life law enforcement context.

the general solicitor gave that argument away. should he have given it away so quickly? was he obligated to give it away at this point? that is what this law will do to us. >> he didn't actually give it away. he pointed out even though sb 1070 targets undocumented immigrants, u.s. citizens and lawfully present immigrants are going to be effected by that law. if you're an united states citizen, you. to go out for a jog in the morning and you don't have your license on you if a police officers stops you fortress passing in a closed park, as it was pointed out, you're going to be streeted treated to a strip to jail by officers who think you're an illegal immigrant. that's the relevant to the narrow question of states rights. the supreme court has always said if a state acts in a way that will impact lawfully present immigrants, that's a

situation the constitution doesn't tolerate. and it's going to effect people of color in this country as states look at these laws and try to regulate immigration. >> now just to explain, i want to get back to chad in a second. but cecelia am i right in where this case sits. it has not been in place, it has not been enforced you can't argue factually there has been profiling, there are no yet cases of profiling to use as a basis for very real life experience that you created as a hypothetical. >> actually, the aclu and over civil rights groups brought lawsuit before the justice department came in. unlike the federal government we have claims and fourth amendment claims, and there is some evidence despite the fact that arizona's law has never gone into effect, we see agencies in arizona who has long had the policy that arizona is now trying to make a matter of statewide mandate.

so there are some who have been doing these stops. and u.s. citizen who is are latino. they have been stopped, profile and detained at the side of the road and asked by police officers to prove their right to be there. >> i have no question that that is the impact of this would be, but verillo his argument did not rest on that. chad, you said you were not an lawyer. my hat goes on to you, that means you something that we lawyers have, which is common sense. look forward. what if this statute is struck down or even if it isn't how does that play out politically? this is going to be contentious going into the november race. give us the more on this. >> i think the majority of the public in arizona and nationally from what i seen anecdoteally and

people across the state from the polling we've done show that most people want a real solution and a real common-sense approach to the immigration issue. they want a comprehensive solution. they want the federal government to do their job, and they want to have a solution that doesn't involve the states trying to take matters in their own hands and making things worse. you know, 1070 has had an huge negative economic impact on arizona. it has created decisiveness in the latino community. and it has not been anywhere near the solution that the sponsors sold it out to be. i think the majority of arizonans are starting to realize that. >> is there a thread here, an on instant nance on the part of governor brewer and those who wanted to race this issue hammer that they use. as you pointed out it has not solved the problem. economic issues, federal enforcement, all this does is rile up decisiveness in the community. is there any pushback politically in the state as a

consequence of that? >> definitely. and we've seen the latino voters start to come out. they came out in the city election. we've seen them registering to vote this year. unfortunately we have leaders right now like governor brewer who seem to be more interested in grandstanding and really selling her book than actually governing the state. she went to washington, d.c. this week to take part in these hearings while we're in the middle of a budget crisis. we don't have a budget for the state and january brewer left the state. that's not leadership. that seems to be a common theme under her administration. it's more about promoting her than actually promoting arizona. it's the g.o.p. leadership. we have a huge budget deficit in arizona and their solution was to sell off the state capital building to wall street. we need to create jobs and their solution was to beg the federal government to make arizona the dumping ground. there is no foresight from the g.o.p. and from the governor. unfortunately, instead of solving problems, they want to

engage in political rhetoric and score points in the far right base. >> here is the good news. if you sold the capital to wall street, it means that we the taxpayers own it at the end of the day. maybe it comes back to us in the end. >> good point. >> state representative and house minority leader, chad cam balance, and cecelia wong, former supreme court clerk. i have to say that. so honorable. barney frank joins me next on viewpoint. viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the

and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht!

50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪ hershey's chocolate syrup. stir up a smile. >> one government watchdog has a mention for all the treasury folks touting success of the

$700 billion bailout. not so fast. our number of the day $60 billion. that's the latest estimated loss from the troubled asset relief program tarp as we know it. three and a half years after the feds rescue of the financial sector. taxpayers are owed $118 billion. but it's not all dollars and cents. tarp inspector christie romero acknowledged that it may have been a bail out then but may make things worse down the the road. because the banks who created the crisis are back on the high-risk bandwagon with an explicit government guarantee standing behind them. meanwhile millions of americans lose their homes and suffer under high employment. we may still be living in a

world where too big to fail banks keep the upside where we the taxpayers get all the down side. stephanie miller rounds out current's new morning news block. >>it's completely inappropriate for television. >>sharp tongue, quick wit and about all, politically direct. >>politically direct to me means no bs, the real thing, cutting through the clutter. my show is the most important show in the world. it takes people with real knowledge to build and maintain a race car. polymers, hydo-carbons, thermal plastics, math and science? you bet it is. many kids don't understand how important these subjects can be that's why time warner cable developed connect a million minds. to introduce kids in our communities to the opportunities that inspire them to develop these important skills. how can my car go faster? maybe your child will figure it out. find out more at connectamillionminds.com

>> he is a lion of the progressive movement. the first voice heard on any issue from equal rights to financial regulations after 31 years in congress, barney frank has decided it's time to retire. but if you thought he would fade away silently you don't know barney. joining me now congressman barney frank, democrat from massachusetts, former chairman and now ranking member of the house financial services committee, coauthor of the that you for your time. >> thank you. >> to repeal the frank-dodd bill the orderly liquidation authority, why are they doing this and how significant a blow would that be to the entirety of dodd frank? >> that would be an incredibly

blow. a requirement that people who secured loans retain some of the risk. that was the single most important. loans where people didn't care if they were paid back was a problem, but what this would do is put us back where we were in september 2008. the provision here by the way that was strongly advocated by the bush administration in the sense that they were right sheila baer, head of the fdic, and ben ben ber benake. they had two choices. they could pay all of the debts or pay none of the debts and let them collapse. so the lehman brothers collapsed

and it froze up the economy everywhere. ben bernanke said this is crazy. if a large financial constitution today can't pay its debts and we do a lot to try to keep that from happening, but if it can't pay their debts they go out of the institution. if a large institution can't pay its debted it's abolished. the shareholders are wiped out. the officers are fired. the board of directors are fired. secondly we give discretion to the administration, you know what, if none of these debts were pay, that would mean that other people could not pay etc., etc. we will only pay as much of the debt that we need to prevent there from being a collapse. but third and most important anything we pay out would be recovered from large financial institutions.

so it will not cost the taxpayers. we abolished the provision that the feds use to lend $80 billion to aig. the republicans said, you know what? we don't think--this is what it comes down to--that healthy financial institutions who didn't fail should help to pay the ones who do. they repealed the whole thing and there was an eloquent plea on behalf of the banks they're being subject to this tax and that tax so these poor banks which have come back to profitability, they don't want them to be on the hook for this. they want to return to the situation we were in september of 2008. it's incredible to me. the sign of the evolution towards irresponsibility in the republican party because it was the republican administration who said, look, we're not happy about this. we want to prevent these things were occurring. but large institutions pay none of its debts and causes the

chaos that we had. they want to go back to that. >> i agree with everything that you said. the only point that i would change history i do not accept the claim that there were not sufficient tools in the early stages of the debacle leading up to '07 or '08. but your fundamental point is so important. the republicans tried to take away the tools the government needs to confront the issue going forward. why do they-- >> let me say this. you're right earlier on ben bernanke inherited right right to step in and stop the bad subprime loans. there interest tools that could have been used to stop things of deteriorating. what i'm talking about only is as of the moment when the crash came, which we agree on. >> absolutely. is this the fact systemic of what is going on with the agenda, almost a paradigm of what the republicans have been parroting for many years.

they want to cut taxes again. save money for the defense department. deregulate financial services. this is dejavu all over again. >> this deregulation which got us in trouble. the wall street journal praised paul ryan and said it puts money back in. but it takes money from medicaid medicaid. it gives them more money to spend in afghanistan and else with a and less in medicare and medicaid. i'm struck--you--i've talked to people at financial institutions. one of the things that is happening right now to keep europe from collapsing

financially. to keep europe from collapsing is the single biggest on stallobstaclefrom us going forward. when they under understand working with the european banks, but the republican party would tell the federal reserve, don't do a thing to encourage europe to do these things. mindlessness has taken over. they are not only for deregulation but they're against any constructive activity that would deal with the crisis once it comes. >> look, there is an age-historical nature to the lessons that the republican party pretends to have learned. i want-- >> let me just--let's remember, you're a good harvard graduate. let's go over the history. remember what they said after

napoleon was overthrown and king louie came in. they have forgotten nothing because they never learned anything. the republicans don't forget anything. they didn't know anything to forget. >> you may perhaps more cynical. i think they learned it but they chose to forget. >> i won't fight that. >> for whatever reason they're prescribing things that are a disaster. you have 31 years of institutional knowledge and knee enormous understanding of government. is it possible for those who have a progressive agenda to operate and be persuasive when the public is so cynical. >> you asked the right question in a very profound and thoughtful way. ironically here is the problem. we are getting blamed, we the democrats, for their mistakes.

barack obama inherited the worst economy in years. it was worse than we thought it was. while we were making progress and improving, the progress has been slower than anybody wanted, and we get blamed for it. we're in a vicious cycle and it's exactly as you said. the people are angry at the government. they don't provide the resources that we need to improve the quality of life because the government is not doing things to improve the quality of life people get angrier. when they get angrier fewer resources. i see one way out of this. we need to bring about substantial reductions in america's military spending. when we are excessively engaged in afghanistan. our original goal of putting an end to bin-laden. we need to make a breakthrough. the people are angry at government. thethe angrier they are at

government the less government can do things. the less roads let's cops on thethe less cops onthe streets the angrier they get. >> so many of the issues converged, the tax cuts expire. the is there an opportunity to make that argument and really begin to implement a different vision, assuming the president is re-elected and we have held our own in congress? >> yes, i think once again you put it right. here is the deal. we are overdoing the military spending. now its zero-sum game. the wall street journal put it correctly. even if we make deeper cuts in the military or equally deep cuts in medicare or medicaid. the public is beginning to understand that. i think staying off in afghanistan longer, building up

more nuclear weapons when we already have more than anybody can ever need for any conceivable problem, the public understands that. we have a chance after the election to say we're going to make constraints on domestic spending, no question. and we're going to make severe cuts in the military. and some of the right wingers don't want to see any cuts in the military are going to go for taxes. if democrats were to hold the senate, president obama is re-elected, and we make gains in the house, and maybe enough gains to take over. i think the momentum will be with us, and we'll raise taxes on wealthy people. we'll reduce military spending constrain spending elsewhere and get back on the right road. >> i hope you're correct. barney frank one of the great powerful voices in the house of representatives for 31 years. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> slow jams, the viewfinder coming up next.

[ male announcer ] at green giant we know nature gives us the most

nutritious of gifts. but only when they are ready to be given. that's why green giant picks vegetables at their peak. ...and freezes them fast locking in nutrients ...for you to unwrap. ♪ ho, ho, ho. green giant ♪ [ man ] ring ring... progresso this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. [ male announcer ] cookies with smooth caramel and chocolate. ♪ ♪ hmm twix. also available in peanut butter. attack on women that perhaps the majority of the population woke up? >> idaho is not known as approaching act i.v. you had hundreds of women show up, thousands signed petitions. they made their voices heard. what happens is that now, the legislators are running scared.

very similar laws have passed quietly in other states for the past 10 years, really in the past two years have intensified. pennsylvania a similar law was shelved, idaho this proved to be political poison. women are paying attention and having their voices heard. >> thanks for coming in. >> the aclu considers a demand that to get a job you have to let an employer open your private mail, the senate wants to make it illegal to hand over a password to your facebook account.

>> still to come, rupert murdoch takes the stands. but first, call it cool. call it swagger. call it nutso. the president slow jams, and we put it in the viewfinder. >> i, too, want to slow jam. >> getting a chance here. all the way to tampa. >> we're working out the details, and we'll-- >> he is cool. mitt romney is not cool. ♪ oh, yeah >> if you know anything about the g-spot. why can't i have an a b c d e, f g spot ♪ you should listen to the

president ♪ the prezee of the united stezee >> having swagger is important to these young folks ♪ frankly i don't buy it >> mm-hmm, the barack obamaness monster just anti-buying it. >> just how much is on the president. >> it wasn't a lot. oh, my god, brussels sprouts. and it was roasted and hard boiled beforehand. that is the real thing. >> i don't care. i think it's nutso ♪ he's the one with the most >> free to become prosperous. i left my last page of the speech. does anyone have my last page. >> do you know mitt romney? >> i've met him. but we're not friends.

>> i like president obama. >> which one. >> the younger one. >> if i said that,-- ♪ that is how we slow jam the news ♪ oh, yeah ♪ >> i don't know, marco rubio, by the time you're at the end of the speech, and you're desperate and you can't make it up by the end of the last page, and you've been in politics as long as you have, that's not good. rupert gets grilled. no other television show does that. we're keeping it real.

while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurance where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate.

you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] dollar for dollar, nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate. for the energy to keep you going. who wouldn't want to be a part of that? payday. the sweet taste of energy. at one point rupert murdoch was reportedly overheard telling his adviser, i quote, get this f-ing thing over with. so it was he was questioned under oath in the inquiry about

the earthics of the british press. much of the hearing was with murdoch's denial over british politics. >> people think over 30 years the support you give to politicians through the endorsements and the sun in particular, the quid pro quo after they attained power. >> i think it's a myth. and everything i do every day i think proves it to be such. i want to put it to bed once and for all that that is a complete myth. >> so what is the myth, mr. murdoch? >> that i used the influence of the sun or their supposed political power to get favorable treatment. i believe perhaps the independent newspaper into business. >> joining me now tell us what

happened today. you were both a reporter and obviously an observer of british politics. this is a remarkable moment, arguably the most powerful journalist in the world answering questions, looking old and shriveled what do you think about this? >> we hardly get to see anything of rupert murdoch and we don't get to know what is going on in his head and then we had four hours. it's extraordinary how much exposure we're getting from him. it's extraordinary how difficult he was today when he was in parliament last year. when he couldn't remember anything. today he was like on amphetamine amphetamine. he was jumping up to the desk. he was telling people what was what and he was fighting back. >> that's exactly right. last year when he testified there was a grandfatherly sense of, gee, i don't know. other people handle things for me. today he was the ceo. he was clearly saying, from my

observation, i was in charge and he was fighting right back of the myth or the weaving of power that he has. dubai it? he controls 50% of the media in great britain. he understands and controls what people think. will people believe that the prime ministers and parliament don't jump at what he says? >> yeah, for 30 years britain being what it is, a monarchy, although the king has been rupertrupert murdoch and not queen elizabeth. he tried to give them questions and not queen elizabeth, talking about ordinary business and doing what people always does. and i didn't buy it, no. >> and this is on top of revelations yesterday that one of the ministers in the cabinet who was supposed to determine whether murdoch was able to buy abc, nbc and cbs all an once, and this notion of independence

seems completely contrary to the fact of the record. what are we missing. >> we learned that the there was resignation today because they were found to be giving information to news corp from the government. this is the time of a massive $12 million bid for news corp from sky. he was denying that he had any influence over british politics. he had no attempt to push his commercial interest in politics. he said that over and over again. at the same time he told us and said it was adequate ordinary that the prime minister, david cameron, delayed his holiday in turkey detoured across to a private yacht in the greek island just to be with rupert murdoch. he said this as if this is ordinary behavior. we had a pitch today of something you could organize as close to corruption, of governments cow-towing in front

of this media tycoon, and to your peter murdoch, this is completely-- >> this is not power. this is as ordinary as people walking along the street. >> this is how the game is played. that's how he sees it. this is a game in which he holds the cards. >> what is the longer term impact for the cameron government because of these revelations? does it cast a shadow? put into the context the economic news that great britain has lapsed into a second recession a double dip. will cameron fall because of this? >> we've had first of all, we've had news corp and its journalistsists in trouble. then police officers in trouble for accepting bribes, and then the political stage. that's what the inquiry is looking at. they're anxious about politics and the media. this is the time for them to

feel the heat. i also feel the opposition in great britain will feel the heat. because of this cosy relationship that has gone way back. tony blair. >> this is a bipartisan effort on rupert murdoch's part to influence government. he wanted this done today. it's not done today. he faces more grilling tomorrow. what issues remain hacking at others and what do you think hans? >> today was like a walk down history. tomorrow we're back to the current moment, and as you know it's incredibly tense. it's all about phone hacking and how much does he know, when did he know it, and how did he allow when we heard from other inquiries a culture of corruption within his own company to grow and to take over his company. >> and so my guess is by the end of tomorrow he will not only disavow any political influence, he'll disavow any knowledge going on and any headlines and he will claim he didn't know he

was running the media by tomorrow. >> yes, we'll back to the do therring old man. >> thanks for coming. >> thanks. >> my vie view coming up. better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. [ male announcer ] this is lawn ranger -- eden prairie, minnesota. in here, the landscaping business grows with snow. to keep big winter jobs on track at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] the jeep grand cherokee has won more than just respect. ♪ ♪ well-qualified lessees can get a 2012 jeep grand cherokee laredo 4x4 for $319 a month. [ woman ] oh, my gosh -- it's so good! [ kristal ] we're just taking a sample of all our different items in our festival of shrimp so we can describe them to our customers. [ male announcer ] red lobster's festival of shrimp starts now! for just $12.99, pair any two of 9 exciting shrimp creations like new barbeque glazed shrimp or crab stuffed shrimp. the crab-stuffed shrimp are awesome! [ woman ] very creamy. that's a keeper! [ woman ] shrimp skewer. [ woman #2 ] sweet, smoky. [ man ] delicious! [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] any combination just $12.99! [ woman ] so what are ya'lls favorites? [ group ] everything! [ laughter ] we're servers at red lobster. and we sea food differently.

♪ ♪ spearmint that tingles as you chew. 5 gum. stimulate your senses. the advil pm® guy is spending less time lying awake with annoying aches and pains and more time asleep. advil pm®. the difference is a better night's sleep. >> score one for the 99%. and taking on bank of america and wins. but first to francisco where we check in with jennifer granholmed a "the war room." how is it going tonight, governor? >> it's great. do you remember what it's like to campaign? in our war room we're all about the three ins of politics, money, message, and mobilization. we're going to take a look at

how the romney is attacking the three ms and how money is corrupting the american political system. we'll take a look at american campaign strategy. we're going to have those stories and more at the top of the hour. >> jennifer, now i'm upset. all the years we were in office at the same time you never told me about the three ms in politics. >> oh, please, i saw you in action. i know you were an expert at it. >> more viewpoints coming up next. >>i know what i'm talking about and i love it and i try to bring that to the show. m